Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Johnson, George W.
1977.
1976 Annual Supplement.
p.
1.
Article contents
Four Theories in Search of a Reality: James Burnham, Soviet Communism, and the Cold War
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Abstract
Right-wing and Left-wing attitudes toward the cold war are strikingly similar because in some cases the anti-communist is himself an ex-communist. This is particularly true of James Burnham, a former disciple of Leon Trotsky and presently the diplomatic columnist of William F. Buckley's National Review. Burnham's writings have had profound influence in America, especially at the time of the outbreak of the Korean War when officials in Washington saw in his books both an answer to “containment” and the first theoretical formulation of the new policy of “liberation-rollback.”
Burnham's own views on the cold war, however, have undergone a number of significant changes and revisions. At different times in his career he has offered four different and often contradictory interpretations of communism: (a) first, the Soviet Union as a “managerial” state that marks the end of Trotsky's dream of “permanent revolution”; (b) next, communism as the latest expression of Machiavellianism that augers the eclipse of liberal democracy and seemingly the inevitability of Stalin; (c) then, during the early cold war period, managerialism and Machiavellianism are dropped and Soviet behavior is now attributed to a Marxist Weltanschauung that replaces power politics with ideological determinism; (d) finally, Burnham criticizes Kennan, Morgenthau, and Lippmann for failing to adopt a “dialectical” viewpoint in order to understand the “dual” nature of the Soviet Union-an ironic reinvocation of Trotsky's earlier message to the Old Left.
The article attempts a critical analysis both of Burnham's shifting perspectives and of the ethical dilemmas in his political thought. It may also be read as a chapter in the intellectual history of the cold war.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1976
References
1 Holsti, Ole R., “The Study of International Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows: Theories of the Radical Right and the Radical Left,” American Political Science Review, 68 (March, 1974), 217–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Wilson, Edmund, To The Finland Station (Garden City: Doubleday, 1940), p. 432Google Scholar.
3 Burnham, James, The Suicide of the West: An Essay on The Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (New York: John Day Co., 1964)Google Scholar.
4 Trotsky, Leon, “The Soviet Union Today: The Workers State and the Question of Thermidore and Bonapartism,” New International, 2 (July, 1935), 116–22Google Scholar; The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going, tr. Eastman, Max (Merit Publishers ed.; New York, 1965), pp. 86–114, 231, 273–89, passimGoogle Scholar.
5 Diggins, John P., “Getting Hegel Out of History: Max Eastman's Quarrel With Marxism,” American Historical Review, 79 (Feb., 1974), 38–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Trotsky, Leon, In Defense of Marxism (Against the Petty-bourgeois Opposition) (New York), pp. 6, 53, 72Google Scholar.
7 Burnham, James, The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening In The World (New York, 1941)Google Scholar.
8 Macdonald, Dwight, “The Burnhamian Revolution,” Partisan Review, 9 (Jan.–Feb., 1942), 76–84Google Scholar.
9 See Ralf-Dehrendorf, , Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959), pp. 136–44Google Scholar.
10 Bailes, Kendal E., “The Politics of Technology: Stalin and Technocratic Thinking among Soviet Engineers,” American Historical Review, 79 (April 1974), 445–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Diggins, John P., Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.
12 Burnham, James, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom (Chicago, Gateway edition, 1963), p. 304Google Scholar.
13 For an interesting response to Burnham's argument, see Croce, Benedetto, “Political Truths and Popular Myths,” in My Philosophy and other Essays on the Moral and Political Problems of Our Time (New York: Collier Books, 1962), pp. 91–95Google Scholar.
14 Burnham, , Machiavellians, p. 44Google Scholar.
15 Ibid., p. 46.
16 Gramsci, Antonio, The Modern Prince and Other Writings (New York: International Publishers edition, 1959)Google Scholar; Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, “A Note on Machiavelli,” in Signs (Evanston, Illinois, 1964) pp. 211–223Google Scholar; Strauss, Leo, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press 1958)Google Scholar; Berlin, Isaiah, “The Question of Machiavelli,” New York Review of Books, 17 (Nov. 4, 1971), 20–32Google Scholar.
17 Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., review of Burnham's, The Struggle for the World, Nation, 64 (April 5, 1947), 398–99Google Scholar.
18 Wolin, Sheldon, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960), p. 217Google Scholar.
19 Burnham, James, “Lenin's Heir,” Partisan Review, 12 (Winter, 1945), 66–67Google Scholar.
20 Abel, Lionel, “Stalin's Advocate,” Politics, 2 (May 1945), 146–48Google Scholar; Macdonald, Dwight, “Beat Me Daddy,” Partisan Review, 12 (Spring, 1945), 181–87Google Scholar.
21 Orwell, George, “Second Thoughts on James Burnham” (1946), in The Orwell Reader: Fiction, Essays, and Reportage (New York: Harcourt, Brace 1956), pp. 335–54Google Scholar.
22 Interview with Burnham, June 11, 1971. Twenty years later Burnham also revealed in writing that “Part I of The Struggle for the World was originally part of a secret study prepared for the Office of Strategic Services in the spring of 1944 and distributed at that time to the relevant Washington desks.” Burnham, , The War We Are In: The Last Decade and the Next (New Rochelle, N.Y.: 1967), p. 10Google Scholar.
23 Burnham, James, The Struggle for the World (New York: The John Day Co., 1947), p. 248, passimGoogle Scholar.
24 “For That or Nothing,” Time, 49 (March 24, 1947), 26–27Google Scholar; Burnham, James, “Struggle For The World,” Life, 22 (March 31, 1947), 59–68, 73–80Google Scholar; letters to the editor ran “about two to one against Burnham,” which led to an entire editorial explaining Life's differences with the author; see editorial, Life, 22 (April 21, 1947), 38Google Scholar. “Blueprint for Empire,” Christian Century, 64 (May 21, 1947), 646–48Google Scholar; see also “The Truman-Burnham Parallel,” Christian Century, 64 (June 4, 1947), 702–03Google Scholar.
25 Burnham, James, “Our Spineless Foreign Policy,” American Mercury, 70 (Jan., 1950), 3–13Google Scholar.
26 Burnham, James, The Coming Defeat of Communism (New York: John Day Co., 1950)Google Scholar.
27 Crossman, R. H. S., “Reflections on the Cold War,” New Republic, 124 (Apr. 9, 1951), 10–12Google Scholar.
28 Courtade, Pierre, “James Burnham, Le Nouveau Rosenberg de l'imperialisme Americain,” La Nouvelle Critique (July–Aug., 1950), pp. 14–28Google Scholar; Jimmy, (Paris: Les Editeurs Français Reunis, 1951)Google Scholar.
29 Daniel Bell to Sidney Hook, Nov. 23, 1953, files, American Committee for Cultural Freedom, Tamiment Library, New York.
30 Burnham, James, “The Case Against Adlai Stevenson,” American Mercury, 80 (Oct. 1952), 11–19Google Scholar.
31 Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to James T. Farrell, Mar. 14, 1955, files, ACCF.
32 Schlesinger, Arthur Jr., “Middle-Aged Man With a Horn,” New Republic, 128 (Mar. 16, 1953), 16–17Google Scholar.
33 Burnham, James, Containment or Liberation? An Inquiry Into the Aims of United States Foreign Policy (New York: John Day Co., 1953), pp. 19–49, passimGoogle Scholar.
34 Daniels, Robert V., “Fate and Will in the Marxian Philosophy of History,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 21 (Oct.–Dec., 1960), 538–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also the same author's “What The Russians Mean,” Commentary, 34 (Oct., 1962), 314–23Google Scholar; and Kiernan, Bernard P., “Ideology and Foreign Policy: A Reconsideration,” Virginia Quarterly Review, 50 (Winter, 1974), 22–38Google Scholar.
35 Burnham, , Containment or Liberation? pp. 217–18, 251Google Scholar.
36 Ibid., pp. 41–42.
37 During the crisis the National Review lost its vaunted sense of power politics and displayed the curse of liberalism—moral gestures. Buckley advocated issuing an “ultimatum” stating that the use of Soviet troops against “any of the East European peoples would constitute a causus belli. We believe that Moscow would have to back down from such an ultimatum.” The use of the conditional “would” indicates that the National Review was hoping for the best while refusing to admit that the worst had already happened. If the Soviets do not back down? The United States, Buckley insisted, should withdraw its ambassador from Moscow and refuse to compete in the Olympic games! (Buckley, , “Platonic Sorrows,” National Review, 2 [Dec. 22, 1956], 45Google Scholar).
38 Burnham, James, “Sighting the Target,” National Review, 2 (Dec. 29, 1956), 12Google Scholar; for Frank S. Meyer's criticism of Burnham, see the National Review columns gathered in his The Conservative Mainstream (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1969), pp. 319–27Google Scholar.
39 See Burnham's, National Review columns gathered in The War We Are In: The Last Decade and the Next (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1967), pp. 126–31Google Scholar.
40 Burnham, James, “Toujours, La Sale Guerre,” National Review, 14 (Jan. 29, 1963), 60Google Scholar; “Who Gives a Whoop?” National Review, 14 (Apr. 7, 1963)Google Scholar; “What Chance in Vietnam?” National Review, 15 (Oct. 8, 1963), 305Google Scholar.
41 Burnham, , The War We Are In, pp. 104–06Google Scholar; “Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?” National Review, 18 (Nov. 15, 1966), 1152–62Google Scholar; “Does Johnson Have a Foreign Policy?” National Review, 16 (Mar. 10, 1964), 190Google Scholar; McNamara's, Non-War, National Review, 19 (Sept. 19, 1967), 1012–14Google Scholar.
42 Burnham, , The War We Are In, pp. 15–23Google Scholar.
43 In The Struggle for the World, Burnham dramatized the Greek revolt of 1944 as a Soviet inspired maneuver and thus the actual beginning of the “Third World War.” Regarding a mutiny in the Greek Navy, which he presumed had been instigated by the Moscow-controlled Greek Communist Party, Burnham wrote: “We do not know the details of what happened in the mutiny; but the details, important as they may be for future scholars, are unnecessary. We know enough to discover the political meaning of what happened, and for this details are sometimes an obstacle” (p. 1). A recent thorough and scholarly study of this affair, wherein “details” inform rather than “obstruct,” presents a quite different picture of the “political meaning” of a resistance movement that Stalin himself would later allow to be crushed. See Iatrides, John O., Revolt in Athens: The Greek Communist “Second Round” 1944–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1972)Google Scholar.
44 Caute, David, The Fellow-Travelers: A Postscript to the Enlightenment (New York: Macmillan, 1973)Google Scholar.
45 Burnham, James, “Nikita Khrushchev; Maoist,” National Review, 16 (July 28, 1964), 644Google Scholar; “Kennedy, Krushchev, and Mao,” National Review, 15 (July 16, 1963), 17Google Scholar; “Bear-Baiting,” National Review, 16 (Aug. 25, 1964), 718Google Scholar; War We Are In, pp. 53–61.
46 Burnham, , War We Are In, pp. 61–63, 195–97Google Scholar.
47 Ibid., pp. 56–58.
48 Burnham, James, “Their World and Ours,” National Review, 2.(Nov. 3, 1956), 19–20Google Scholar.
49 Ibid., p. 19; War We Are In, pp. 56–63, 99.
50 In 1960, Burnham edited and introduced a sympoisum, sponsored by The American-Asia Educational Exchange and published by the National Review, on the conservative response to the Sino-Soviet split. Here one may find well-reasoned, though subsequently disproved, arguments, particularly those by Stefan T. Possony and Karl A. Wittfogel, explaining why the split was more apparent than real and why China would be forced to remain subordinate to the Soviet Union. See Burnham, , Bear and Dragon: What Is The Relation Between Moscow and Peking? (New York, 1960)Google Scholar.
51 Burnham, , The War We Are In, pp. 29–33Google Scholar.
52 Ibid., pp. 27–29.
53 Burnham's debate with Trotsky is discussed in Diggins, “Getting Hegel Out of History,” op. cit. pp. 65–71.
54 For further discussion of the ex-communist intellectuals and the cold war, see this author's Up From Communism: Conservative Odysseys in American Intellectual History (New York: Harper & Row, 1975)Google Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.